Craig Christopher Cameron (as personal representative of the estate of Yvonne Cameron) v Camille Anne-Marie Cameron
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Master Linwood |
| Judgment Date | 12 February 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 229 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: PT-2019-000939 |
| Date | 12 February 2021 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
[2021] EWHC 229 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND & WALES
PROPERTY, TRUSTS AND PROBATE LIST (ChD)
The Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Deputy Master Linwood
Case No: PT-2019-000939
Mr Timothy Deal (instructed by Hebbar & Co) for the Claimant
Mr Varun Zaiwalla (instructed by Bird & Lovibond) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 9 th & 10 th December 2020 and 20 th and 21st January 2021
Written submissions: 22 nd and 25 th January 2021
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
This is my judgment following trial of this claim by Craig Cameron, as personal representative of the estate of his late mother, Mrs Yvonne Cameron (“Mrs Cameron” or “mother”), against his sister Camille Cameron. I will refer to the parties by their first names with no disrespect intended. Paragraph numbers are shown as [ ] and are internal unless the context indicates otherwise.
Below I set out the claim in essence and the agreed issues. I then turn to the family background, the DWP investigation, purchase of the property and subsequent events in neutral terms indicating where the parties disagree, the law, my findings of fact and my decisions on the issues. But first I address how this trial went part heard and the Particulars of Claim and Defence came to be amended.
The Trial and the Amendments
Craig claims the family home, a three bedroom bungalow at 42, John Perrin Place, Harrow, Middlesex (“the Property”) purchased by his late mother should form part of her estate; Camille says it is hers. Craig's claim was first pleaded on the basis that there was no intention of a joint tenancy, as Craig and his lawyers were unaware of the declaration of trust on the face of the Land Registry Transfer of Part Form TP1 (“the TP1”) completed by Camille and their mother. Mr Zaiwalla submitted that declaration of trust was determinative of the claim – see for example Lord Mummery's concurring judgment in Pankhania v Chandegra [2012] EWCA Civ at [13].
On 9 th December 2020, the first morning of trial, Mr Deal said neither Craig nor his wife, Alison, were able to give evidence as they were ill and further Covid-19 had been diagnosed by a GP after a telephone consultation. In opening, Mr Deal submitted that Craig's claim would rely on first an unpleaded allegation of mistake in relation to the TP1 and secondly an unpleaded claim for rectification of the TP1.
Mr Zaiwalla submitted that this was no doubt because Craig and his lawyers had suddenly and belatedly realised how his claim was, as then pleaded and on the face of the documents, unlikely to succeed, and the application by Mr Deal to adjourn the trial was due to an intention to apply to amend the claim, which Mr Deal denied. I directed that evidence should be filed in support of the application to adjourn by 10.00am the next day. I did not want to lose the afternoon both in terms of court time and costs; Mr Zaiwalla said he was ready to start and I therefore took the somewhat unusual course, after hearing submissions from counsel, of hearing Camille's evidence. There was also the possibility that I would not grant the requested adjournment so the sooner the evidence commenced, the better.
The evidence satisfied me that I should adjourn, but I heard the remainder of Camille's evidence. My Order of 10 th December 2020 provided for a further two days for trial, which were listed on 11 th December for trial on 20 th and 21 st January 2021. On 17 th December 2021 an application to amend the Particulars of Claim was sent by Craig's solicitors, Hebbar & Co, in draft to Camille's solicitors, Bird & Lovibond, who immediately raised certain queries. They were ignored and the application issued on 21 st December.
I heard it on 11 th January 2021. I was narrowly persuaded to grant permission to amend (save as to one paragraph regarding severance) for the reasons set out in my extempore judgment, but in short I was persuaded by Mr Deal's assurances that the trial date would not be prejudiced, there would be no further disclosure, Camille would not need to be recalled and he would not seek to adduce further witness evidence. Further, consequential amendments to the Defence would be limited. As it happened, Mr Deal did endeavour to have Craig give oral evidence in chief, which in the main I refused to permit. Two emails were disclosed which should have been provided many months ago.
The Claim in Essence
Craig in the prayer to his Amended Particulars of Claim asks for:
i) a declaration that Mrs Cameron was since purchase in 2014 the sole beneficial owner of the Property until she died in 2018 and as may be necessary rectification and/or recission of the TP1 on the grounds of common or unilateral mistake;
ii) Recission and/or setting aside of the transfer of the Property to Camille made by Mrs Cameron executing, whilst in hospital and seriously ill, Land Registry Form TR1 (“the TR1”) almost two weeks before she died on 26 th June 2018 and
iii) an order that Camille transfer the Property to the estate of their mother.
Camille says she owns the whole of the beneficial interest in the Property as:
i) It was originally conveyed into her and her mother's joint names as they executed a declaration of trust on the TP1, confirming the beneficial interest was owned by them and
ii) There was no “mistake” or “error” as to the TP1 and so no ground for rectification arises;
iii) In June 2018 her mother properly executed the TR1 to transfer her interest in the Property to Camille.
THE ISSUES
The agreed issues are:
i) Should the TP1 dated 17 th February 2014 be rectified so as to remove the declaration of trust at box 11 by the Court on the basis: a) of common 1 mistake by Mrs Cameron and Camille? or b) of a unilateral mistake by Mrs Cameron?
If not, the Property was held as joint tenants. If so:
ii) From the time of purchase did Mrs Cameron and Camille hold the beneficial interest in the Property: a) as joint tenants? or; b) on trust for Mrs Cameron alone?
And:
iii) If Mrs Cameron and Camille did not hold the beneficial interest in the Property as joint tenants, was the TR1 effective to transfer the entire beneficial interest to Camille?
The Family Background
Mrs Cameron was 25 years old when Craig was born in 1982 and then Camille in 1984. They came to the UK from Jamaica in 1984, living at various addresses in North West London. Eventually they were housed by the London Borough of Brent (“Brent”). Camille says her mother was never well enough to work and relied on state benefits and a small pension from Jamaica. Craig says otherwise; she worked as a cleaner initially, until about 1999 when she suffered a brain tumour, and Brent offered a transfer to the Property due to her reduced mobility. The family moved in in 2002.
Craig left the Property at some time between 2005 – 2008. In August 2008 he married Alison. Camille remained with her mother in the Property. In 2018, by reason of her failing health, Mrs Cameron moved literally across the road to a care home.
On 26 th June 2018 Mrs Cameron died in hospital. Craig applied for and obtained on 25 th September 2018 a Grant of Letters of Administration to her estate, the net value of which was stated to not exceed £265,000. The Property is currently worth at least £400,000, with a mortgage of about £80,000.
The DWP/Brent Investigation (“the Investigation”)
Craig says in 2011 his mother was investigated by the DWP and Brent as she had savings excess of £150,000, but was receiving Disability Living Allowance and Housing Benefit, when the upper savings limit was about £16,000. He instructed a solicitor, Mr Khan, of City solicitors, Wembley, on his mother's behalf. During the Investigation he saw bank statements of his mother which showed she had at least £150,000 in a variety of banks. Craig says no action was taken by the DWP as his mother said she was holding the funds for Camille. This, in his view, was a fraud committed by his mother assisted by Camille.
He understood Camille set up joint accounts with their mother for those savings and believes Camille has not accounted to the estate for the funds as she has failed to provide any account information. The Investigation was not mentioned by Camille in her witness statement. She was cross examined about the Investigation, the instruction of Mr Khan, and interview with the DWP but replied to every question, immediately and without hesitation “I don't recall that”. Mr Deal then put to her that there was an investigation in 2011 by the DWP and Harrow council. Her reply was “No. I am not aware of that”.
One of the two emails produced on 20 th January that I refer to in [7] above was sent by Camille on 10 th December 2010 to Mr Azhar Khan at City Solicitors, from her personal email address, copied to Craig. The subject is “Mrs Yvonne Cameron's Interview 14 th December”. Camille writes “…to confirm that we will be meeting on the 14 th as discussed…the venue is…Fraud Investigation Service…Harrow…”. She concludes by thanking Mr Khan again for his assistance and states for further information he can contact her or Craig.
I do not accept Camille's evidence in this respect. I cannot accept that she had forgotten the Investigation as whilst it was about 10 years ago a) she was directly involved in it, b) she assisted her mother in her defence, c) this is a most serious matter; benefit fraud can result in repayment orders of many thousands of pounds, fines and possibly a prison sentence and so not an event which is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Table of Cases
...v Penny [2019] EWHC 2034 (Ch), [2019] Costs LR 1453 224 C v Advocate General for Scotland. See Connolly v MOD Cameron v Cameron [2021] EWHC 229 (Ch), [2021] 2 WLUK 199, [2021] All ER (D) 103 (Feb) 179 Cant v Johnstone. See Ray, Re Carr & Others v Beaven & Others [2008] EWHC 2582 (Ch), [2008......
-
Jointly Owned Assets and Assets Held on Constructive Trust
...of doing so, in the absence of evidence to establish otherwise the presumption of joint ownership will arise (see Cameron v Cameron [2021] EWHC 229 (Ch), where a claim on constructive trust and allegations of mistake and undue influence failed). In relation to sham transactions, a useful su......